SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak?

HelloI'm looking at some Cat model that is manageable enough to move with one hand, not too heavy, but with sufficient diameter to enjoy the deep sky objects and planets ..Perhaps the SC 6 "Mak or 127 ..? Some others? Thanks

Not much difference in physical size / weight between the 6" SCT and 5" Mak tubes, but the extra aperture is definitely a bonus for deep sky and doesn't hurt for anything else.

Alternatively consider this scope which is the nicest small cat I've seen in a while, and quite reasonably priced - I'm sure this would be available in the USA for about the same price in dollars as we have to pay pounds sterling >8-(

This scope is sold in the US as the iOptron MAK 150mm Maksutov-Cassegrain OTA. They are sold at several retailers. I took ownership of a used one last week and can't wait to have first light on it, alas, the weather never cooperates when I get a new scope....EVER

I like both, but a C6 with starbright XLT coatings is going to be *much* brighter and go significantly deeper than the 5" MCT which won't have enhanced coatings on the mirrors typically (in addition to losing an inch of aperture to the SCT).

Definitely go with a good 6" mak, (or a C-6 w/coatings) if desired!! I had an ORION 5" (127mm) mak-cass and, though good enough for Lunar and Planetary work....it needed more help on deep sky!!! Aperture always wins out!!!

I have Orion's 180mm MCT and really enjoy it. With binoviewers, barlows, focal reducers and a solar filter there is a lot to see. I almost got the 150mm but glad I decided for the more aperture. While I love the MCT also consider where you live. Cool downs on a MCT can be lengthy and if the temperature is continually dropping it may never stabilize for decent viewing. Here is Texas there is not much of a winter so it is no problem.

I've had a c6 while also owning the orion 127mm mak.For me,side by side,the mak ruled everytime on the planets.For deep sky the 6 will win.In both instance we are not talking about signifigant differences.For "one handed" ease both will work very well on the early cg4's or orion astroviews.Both of these mounts come up often in the classifieds and are inexpensive,even with drives.

Jim
starbright XLT coatings must be great if the image is brigher!
I had a go with a C8 vs my SW 180 MAK and the clear winner was the MAK sharper and brigter wasnt hard to see, wasnt a HD thou.
Could have been a collimation issue but i doubt that would have to do with the brightness!
hmmm
In my mind i would have to go to a 8" HD or a ACF to match my 180 SW MAK, but not sure if that will suffice.

Tank, that's an interesting result (C8 vs SW180). Were you able to compare at very similar magnifications when making the judgement of brightness?

I have an Orion 127 Mak and a C8 (XLT coatings) and the C8 is a very clear winnerin brightness and resolution, which is to be expected. If only I had a full range of Mak sizes against which to make comparisons. I think 5" to 10" in 1" increments should be enough...

Ed, In the past I had an excellent c8(sharp at 350-400x) set up side by side with my 180mm mct orion.In terms of resolution the mak won easily every time.It sank the meade 10 sct I had as well.Both of the larger scopes,to me,were of course brighter but definition ruled,always pulling out finer details,in the case of these comparisons.However in the case of the orginal poster,the differences between my c6 and orion 5" mak were somewhat marginal.

It's my understanding that Bosma makes the iOptron 150mm MCTs. Is that true of the Altair model as well?

They seem to be identical.

Does anyone know who ultimately fabricates the Orion 150 and 180 MCTs?

Those are identical to the Skywatcher MCTs of the same apertures and come from a Synta-owned factory in China. And on my experience they're inferior in mechanical construction as well as optically to the Altair 150/1800 Mak. (Single speed focuser with mirror shift vs dual speed apparently free of mirror shift; primary mirror lacks collimation screws on the Synta Maks; finish appears cheaper on the Syntas. And the secondary mirror is a silvered spot on the back of the corrector plate instead of being in an independently adjustable holder.)

Personally I'd prefer a C6 SCT tube to a Synta Mak of the same aperture because it will cool down faster and because the optics can be collimated easily. OTOH I'd certainly prefer the Altair 150/1800 Mak to a C6, for planetary work ... the optics are just so much crisper (once it's cooled). It's a little heavier and bulkier and the light grasp may be fractionally less (due to slightly less efficient coatings) but the quality feels better as well as being better optically and at least you don't have to shell out for a microfocuser as well.

Depends on several things really.The smaller the aperature then the larger the difference.For example a 100mm rfr will always blow away a 75mm assuming the same build and quality.The same is true with a 127mm when compared to a 100mm.The difference continues with each step up but is of less impact as the difference decreases (porportionally)in one inch increments.When your comparing one inch differances in different scope types (sct vs mct)then other factors come in to play.FLs,secondary obstruction,etc all factor in.We can all suggest our choices based on our experience but your the best judge of what's best for you.In your case,whats your inclination? Does the 6" sct come to mind first? If so,I'd go with it.That lustfull part of your telescope heart is telling you something Or perhaps its the 127mm mak.Either way,your coming out with winners

Besides, at 31% the 127mm MCT has an undesirably large CO anyway. You give up almost nothing with the C6 and gain aperture, resolution, light grasp and contrast transfer. The two cost the same, too. A C6 will give a 150mm Synta MCT a run for its money. There's not much competition when comparing it to a 127mm MCT from the same maker.

Larry Carlino did a nice review of the C6, including some comparisons to the 150mm MCT, here:

"A day later, the Straight Wall became visible near the terminator and displayed its subtle irregularities and the elusive Rima Birt nearby. The view was strikingly similar to that afforded by the Orion 150mm Mak-Cass at similar magnification. Initially, I had the impression that the Orion scope had slightly better contrast, but now it seems that the significantly brighter image of the Celestron gave an erroneous read. These scopes are so close in revealing lunar and planetary detail that it’s difficult to choose one over the other – both are very good."